Simmons v. Epps’s Empirical Analysis
654 F.3d 526 · 2011
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Williams v. Taylor · Kotteakos v. United States · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Chambers v. Mississippi
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“deal[ing] with the exclusion of specific types of evidence rather than specific items in evidence,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Halprin v. Davis · Rhoades v. Davis“Because [the petitioner's] argument falls outside the scope of the COA, we may not address it here.”). 3 . The State also contests the district court’s conclusion that Powell timely filed his federal habeas petition and that he exhausted his due process confrontation claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1) (stating that petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed by persons”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.